1. If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

  2. Dismiss Notice

Gun Control - A what-if scenario

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by endus, Oct 6, 2015.

?
  1. Yes

    38 vote(s)
    23.5%
  2. No - The only change I would support is the repeal of ALL gun-specific laws

    81 vote(s)
    50.0%
  3. No - But if they allowed new machine guns to become part of legal NFA items I would

    7 vote(s)
    4.3%
  4. No - For some other reason below.

    36 vote(s)
    22.2%
  1. endus

    endus

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Libertarian Party Command Center
    What if there was a proposal at the national level to comprehensively reform gun laws nation wide. The proposal would contain the following items gun owners want:

    • Federally mandated national concealed carry reciprosity
    • Elimination of assault weapons bans - pre-94 configuations legal nationwide
    • Licenses would be shall issue
    • Elimination of other arbitrary local restrictions (MA pistol laws, etc.)

    ...BUT it would also require the following...

    • License is required to purchase pistols and any rifle with a detachable magazine
    • A background check would be required for private sales and transfers would have to be documented
     
  2. atilla

    atilla

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    30,781
    Likes Received:
    8,648
    Location:
    free hampshire
    too many opportunities to shit on people with background checks and licenses. very easy to reclassify individuals to fit into the arbitrary "unsuitable" category. suddenly being anti-government will mean you can be unofficially diagnosed as being paranoid and potentially violent... boom, no gun for you. you're now a bad guy.
     
    4 people like this.
  3. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    66,458
    Likes Received:
    22,736
    It'd die within about 5 minutes of introduction because the anti states would vote against it (they'd lose control within their urban fiefdoms) and at least 20-30 or so, very solid pro gun states would never suck for the 2 requirements you just mentioned, particularly the whole "license" business, whereas in like 40+ states such a special license is not required. That's a pretty bad concession that clearly poison pills the whole thing.

    The license thing is especially bad because it also implies you'd have to have the license to even possess the gun you just bought. Nobody in their right mind wants to have MA's poop cast nationwide.

    ETA: Another problem with this proposal is like 75% of the country is already getting the first 4 things you mention "for free, by default" so why would anyone want to give anything up for it? It's like some indians trading land for blankets with smallpox on it and a handful of glass beads. [laugh]

    -Mike
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
    1 person likes this.
  4. bigblue

    bigblue

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    13,696
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Most of what you propose does not currently affect 38 states in the nation. Why would anyone sign on to this?
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. knfmn

    knfmn

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,251
    Likes Received:
    726
    Location:
    North shore, MA
    Ok, this starts with an erroneous presumption: that states will allow the feds to dictate lesser gun laws to them. California, NJ, NY, CT, MA and MD won't let that happen. (Did I miss any in there? Might have...)

    You're also going off the presumption that all gun owners want the things you list in the beginning of your post. They don't. I certainly don't want national reciprocity and I can guarantee you that most of the fudds out there don't want AWB's lifted or shall issue licenses.

    Having addressed that, federally mandated reciprocity is a terrible idea. You would wind up spending 2-3 weeks in class, paying hundreds of dollars and then would still be severely limited in where you could car
    ry.

    A license to purchase pistols and rifles and mandatory background checks are unconstitutional. (as are the other things you brought up, but let's focus on the two "gifts" we would receive) Requiring a license to purchase a firearm and mandatory background checks would shortly segue into registration for all firearms-->confiscation of the "evil" ones.

    It's a terrible idea. I can't say enough bad things about it.
     
  6. MachineHead

    MachineHead NES Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    3,370
    Location:
    Central MA
    C-O-N-T-R-O-L is the operative word of the thread. There's too much of it and we need less of it.
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. endus

    endus

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Libertarian Party Command Center
    By the way, poll results are anonymous...vote honestly and then you can posture as much as you want in the thread. :)
     
  8. GaryO

    GaryO NES Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    11,199
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Location:
    Franklin
    I can't believe members voted yes on this. [​IMG]
     
  9. xtry51

    xtry51

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    19,955
    Likes Received:
    7,934
    Location:
    NH (CT Escapee)
    No
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Beansie

    Beansie NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    231
    Not as written, hell no.

    Would have to sweeten the pot on the "win for us" side (like option 3) and also heavily restrict government on the "loss for us" side of the proposal.

    But like was mentioned, there is a free America when it comes to firearms, not sure they wouldn't be pissed here because they are losing a lot more than we would be.
     
  11. MisterHappy

    MisterHappy NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    20,135
    Likes Received:
    4,844
    Location:
    On the 16 yard line, shootin' for the Lewis!
    when you allow "some" control, you allow ALL control.

    Who would decide what constitutes the requirements for the license? In Mass, a Hunter Ed certificate is statutorily acceptable for LTC/FID issue, but some towns will not accept it. Should those people decide what's acceptable?

    Who does the background check? What is the cost of this? Is it instant, or is it as efficient as the LTC issuance in Mass?

    This is the problem with "reasonable restrictions" - even if they are "reasonable" at the start, they inevitably creep. Like the FID that was indefinite unless suspended or revoked, and shall issue. Until it wasn't.

    Oh, and if you have the license, proving that you're a good guy, why is an additional check be needed.
     
    2 people like this.
  12. wahsben

    wahsben NES Life Member NES Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    2,935
    Location:
    Ma.
    NO! Gun control only benefits tyrants, criminals and madmen. Also there is a way to do a background check called BID that doesn't identify the law abiding. The fact that the govt. doesn't use it shows the purpose of background checks is for registration not safety.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2015
    1 person likes this.
  13. teaser452

    teaser452

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    2,103
    Location:
    NC defending a beach
    I can't believe that as of this writing, 18.75% voted yes. We have a fifth column amongst us. Far worse than I thought. I'd have guessed 5%ish.
     
  14. wahsben

    wahsben NES Life Member NES Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    2,935
    Location:
    Ma.
    Sadly some people just feel the need to be controlled and to control others. No where has gun control been a success and in some places it has actually made things worse yet they believe somehow someway that criminals will obey the law.

     
  15. DispositionMatrix

    DispositionMatrix NES Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    3,569
    Likes Received:
    903
    Location:
    SoNH
    It is important to keep in mind ban states would be willing to effectively nullify federal law, just as NY and NJ effectively nullify FOPA and MA effectively nullifies 2A entirely. So even if those states signed on to your proposed standards, they would not comply with them when the time came for implementation.
     
  16. endus

    endus

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Libertarian Party Command Center
    What else would you want besides the elimination on the restriction of new machine guns? What else would sweeten the pot?
     
  17. Horrible

    Horrible NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    11,489
    Likes Received:
    3,200
    Location:
    Central MA
    I don't trust Dems. I can see them setting a trap to repeal certain things in exchange for other new restrictions and then turn around and re-instate the repealed restrictions.

    All you need to do is look at the deals that Reagan and Bush 43 made with them regarding taxes. In case you don't know, the Dems never really kept up their end of the deal.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. endus

    endus

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Libertarian Party Command Center
    The logistics of passing this aren't really what I care about (this time around). Totally excellent points made on that front, but what I'm more interested in is IF we could get buy in from all the states to abide by this, what would be an acceptable trade off (or is there even an acceptable trade off) to gun owners in New England.
     
  19. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    66,458
    Likes Received:
    22,736
    Well, that's the problem.... the rest of the country is gonna tell us to go **** ourselves (and rightly so) even if we thought this was somehow a good idea. There are literally only a handful of places where most of the things in the preface of the proposal are a problem. Most people don't deal with any of this crap that we do... so they get nothing out of the deal, and lose a lot.

    -Mike
     
    1 person likes this.
  20. jibbr71

    jibbr71 NES Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    4,243
    Likes Received:
    1,134
    Location:
    In the 603
    The problem with this is that there are such varied degrees of oppression just in New England, from draconian Mass, to pretty decent Maine, to outright wild west in Vermont. Each state, and in some cases (e.g. Boston vs the rest of Ma) different parts of one state, has it's own issues and thresholds that must be met before gun owners there feel like they're getting something out of the deal.
     
  21. bullseye

    bullseye

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    10,784
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Location:
    Grid 17S with bugout longterm shelter and great fi
    Obamama is going to rule with executive action and my guess is mandatory background checks and formal transfer regarding all sales. Here in N.C., like in most states, private sales only require a form of state ID showing age and residency on long arm sales. Handgun sales require only a CCW or pistol purchase permit and state ID to be exchanged with the seller, no background check or transfer required.
    I hope I am wrong.
     
  22. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    66,458
    Likes Received:
    22,736


    Lol good luck to him on that.

    -Mike
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2017
  23. bigblue

    bigblue

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    13,696
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    When was the last time an executive order was struck down? Ever?
     
  24. endus

    endus

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Libertarian Party Command Center
    Of course, but national elections aren't just decided by gun owners and hardcore antis. I agree that people in free states would get nothing out of the deal but, then, like knfmn said, that's based on the assumption that all gun owners want the same things. Fudds might very well support increased control in their state...

    I'm not getting such a huge gun control fever vibe from this mass shooting, which is good, but what frightens me the most is more states having laws like MA where its almost impossible to comply even if you want to comply. Then you have NY that you can't even drive through with a gun without potentially getting jammed up.
     
  25. Beansie

    Beansie NES Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    231
    What do I want, or what would politically possible?

    Just throwing out some ideas here:
    Cans don't' need a stamp.
    No need for a stamp for a semi-auto SBR
    ATF can't restrict non-explosive ammo
    Any additional restrictions 2nd amendment related need a 2/3rd's vote in both houses...


    I'm just tossing stuff out, I might come up with more later. I was speaking more in line of "what will actually get people to be okay with this" rather than, "what do I personally want to see happen". There is some cross over, but... Ultimately different things. I'm certainly not sitting here thinking we need MORE restrictions on the citizens. Restrictions on .gov? Sure.
     
  26. bigblue

    bigblue

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    13,696
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Repeal Hughes.
    Justice Dept processes NFA only for mg's, DD's, & maybe AOW's.
    Ban the ATF.
    Else what Beansie wrote.
     
  27. endus

    endus

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Libertarian Party Command Center
    Yea, totally. I think that's why I'm interested in NE opinions especially...since there is so much variation in such a small area and complying can be a legitimate pain in the ass.

    I haven't voted either way, but there are a couple posts here which I think make very good points on why this would be undesirable. One thing I do think would be valuable is consistency, though. What I wonder is, is there some concession we could give to the liberals that most of us would accept to shut down their most common talking points in exchange for that consistency.
     
  28. bigblue

    bigblue

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    13,696
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Oh yeah, ban gun free zones.
    Signs do not have force of lawr.
    Roll back all import restrictions.
     
  29. drgrant

    drgrant Moderator NES Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    66,458
    Likes Received:
    22,736
    If Obama really had that kind of sweeping power he would have used it already after sandy hookmaster BS happened. EOs are limited in scope and authority.

    -Mike
     
  30. endus

    endus

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Libertarian Party Command Center
    Basically, "what would you need to shut down the liberal's most common concerns".

    I think these are all really really good wins to require.
     

Share This Page